1. Field of the Invention
This invention relates to golf putter heads, specifically a frame design that improves alignment and performance, and facilitates customization.
2. Description of the Prior Art
The putter is the most important club for a golfer. On average, the putter accounts for 40 percent of score, twice as much as the second most often used club, the driver. Most putter heads are manufactured with a rigid appearance, percussion, balance, length, width, height, loft, lie, and weight, so the golfer must learn to conform to the putter. There is a need for a putter that conforms to the golfer, a putter that can be customized to fit the golfer's preferences.
In Golf Magazine's, May 1995 issue, in the article "How to Pick a Putter," pages 100-101, David T. Pelz lists the most important attributes in choosing a putter--in order by most important: 1) shaft length (not relevant to putter head design), 2) shaft angle [lie], 3) balance [peripheral weighting], 4) alignment aides, 5) weight, 6) grip (not relevant to putter head design), 7) head-twisting at impact [torc], 8) repetitive soling (returns to the same position when soled), 9) appearance, and 10) feel [percussion].
There are numerous putter head patents that disclose adjustability for lie, alignment, weight, torc, appearance, percussion, and loft (not listed above), but these patents usually address only one attribute per patent, and even fewer solve three or more attributes in one design. U.S. Pat. No. 5,429,356 to Craig B. Dingle and William Harpell (1995) discloses an adjustable putter head where lie, weight, and torc are adjustable. But, the putter's main element remains the same, preventing changes in appearance and not allowing for customization of peripheral weighting, alignment aides, repetitive soling, percussion, and loft. There is still a need for a putter head that will allow customization for all attributes in one design, giving the golfer absolute control of the putter's arrangement.
Golf is a game of accuracy and repeatability of which alignment plays a very significant part. When golfers use the standard alignment aids on putter heads, many tend to aim to the right or left of the target. When the golfer performs the putting stroke, their brain makes a subconscious correction by either opening or closing the striking face at impact. As the golfer nears the target, less correction is used; but, in essence, the golfer has a slightly different putting stroke for every distance.
All putter heads have some type of alignment aid. The most common is perpendicular squaring, when an elongated-embodied element extends perpendicular to the longitudinal axis of the putter head, analogous to lining up a tennis ball with a racket. Of those, most use singular squaring, having only one embodied element. U.S. Pat. No. 2,222,534 to Howard T. Harris (1940) discloses a putter with two plates. Multiple elements are easier to align than one element because the brain can use multiple reference points for aligning the putter head. Even with multiple elements, perpendicular squaring is not as easy to align as parallel squaring, when an elongated-embodied element extends parallel to the longitudinal axis of the putter head, analogous to lining up a billiard ball with a cue. U.S. Pat. No. 5,529,302 to Moctezuma Rodriguez (1996) discloses a putter head that uses one slender-elongated rod for parallel squaring. The single rod has the benefit of creating a free-standing embodied sight line which is also easier to align than painted lines on a thick element because the golfer can see the turf beside the element and decide how the element should travel over the turf, creating a relational effect. Even though singular parallel squaring improves alignment, it usually fails to provide peripheral weighting, when a putter's toe and heel weigh more than its center. U.S. Pat. No. 4,754,976 to David T. Pelz (1988) discloses a putter head that improves peripheral weighting by using a thick-elongated rectangle. The rectangle is also capped by a plate but the plate is rendered nonexistent by the rectangle's thickness which is thicker than the golf ball and the central focus area. The thickness weakens the embodied sight line and parallel squaring. This is an example where improving peripheral weighting inevitably weakened parallel squaring, creating an ostensibly inverse relationship between the two. U.S. Pat. No. 3,873,094 to Alexander Sebo and Leroy H. Despins (1975) discloses multiple parallel squaring elements using three elongated cylinders in a transparent plate. Since longer elements are easier to align than shorter elements, the relatively short length of the cylinders, and the position of the hosel between cylinders, weakens parallel squaring. Additional embodiments of this patent use webs or bridges to connect the short cylinders which further impedes the embodied sight line and weakens parallel squaring.
The next step in the progression is putters that have at least one perpendicular and one parallel squaring element in one design. U.S. Pat. No. 5,080,365 to Frank J. Winchell (1992) discloses a putter head that uses an elongated rod as the parallel squaring element and an elongated plate as the perpendicular squaring element. The putter head has a plan view silhouette resembling the letter `T`. This design suffers from the ostensibly inverse relationship between peripheral weighting and parallel squaring. Additional embodiments of this patent address peripheral weighting by changing the shape of the rod into a triangular framework with weighted-knobs at each comer. The change inevitably weakens parallel squaring because it creates non-linear plan view interference from protuberances, cavities, and transversing elements. U.S. Pat. No. 5,470,070 to Christopher J. Bendo (1995) discloses another putter in the shape of a `T` where the ends of the perpendicular squaring element terminate into nodules. The majority of the putter is still located in the parallel squaring element. The sinuous body weakens perpendicular and parallel squaring. Again, improving peripheral weighting inevitably weakened parallel squaring. U.S. Pat. No. 5,580,058 to Brian E. Coughlin (1996) discloses a putter head with one elongated plate for perpendicular squaring and two elongated rods at the peripheries for parallel squaring. The putter head's main objective is to place the rods out of the central focus area, weakening parallel squaring. Again, improving peripheral weighting inevitably weakened parallel squaring. U.S. Pat. No. 4,253,667 to Jack L. Clark and William T. Naud (1981) discloses a putter head with an elongated rectangular midsection with extending webs that give the putter head a plan view silhouette resembling the letter `H`. This design also suffers from the ostensibly inverse relationship between peripheral weighting and parallel squaring. Its midsection is too thick to be effective for parallel squaring. U.S. Pat. No. 5,275,412 to Stuart W. Innes (1994) discloses a putter head with long front and sole plates and a short back plate. Three tiny rungs bridge the front plate with the back plate to create multiple parallel squaring elements. The tiny size of the rungs weakens the embodied sight lines, and the position of the sole plate beneath the rungs eliminates the relational effect of a free-standing embodied sight line. U.S. Pat. No. 5,628,694 to O'Connor, Jr. (1997) discloses a practice putter head with a plan view silhouette in the shape of a hollow rectangular-oval. Inside the hollow are three tiny rungs used for longitudinal alignment on a rug painted with three corresponding lines. The tiny size of the rungs, combined with deltoid ends, and the position of the rungs near the bottom of the deep rectangular-oval, weakens parallel squaring.
Frame putters provide both multiple perpendicular and parallel squaring elements in one design. U.S. Pat. No. 4,010,958 to Steve K. Long (1977) discloses a frame putter head where multiple rods are parallel, perpendicular and angled to the longitudinal axis of the putter head. The putter's primary feature, weighted square knobs at the comers of a square frame, combined with angled and sinuous internal rods, creates interference that weakens both parallel and perpendicular squaring. The center rod is too thin and sinuous, and the gaps between the longitudinal rods, though prototypical of peripheral weighting, are much too large--over twice the width of the longitudinal rods--to be effective for parallel squaring. The lack of a center rod in additional embodiments further widens the gap between rods. Design Pat. No. 231,373 to Richard Pavelle (1974) discloses a frame putter with five plates. Two lateral plates are used as perpendicular squaring elements, and three longitudinal plates are used as parallel squaring elements. The center longitudinal plate is too thin, and the gaps between the longitudinal plates, though prototypical of peripheral weighting, are much too large--over twice the width of the longitudinal plates--to be effective for parallel squaring. The smooth connections between the plates, and the lack of extending webs, obscures the borders between lateral and longitudinal plates which weakens perpendicular and parallel squaring. This design doesn't provide optimal peripheral weighting since the plates are composed of the same material throughout.
There is still a need for a putter head that optimizes alignment without sacrificing performance, a putter that can help the golfer setup correctly. Incidentally, of the twelve putters listed for alignment illustrations, one (U.S. Pat. No. 2,222,534) provides lie adjustability, three (U.S. Pat. Nos. 5,529,302, 5,080,365, and 4,253,667) provide weight adjustability, and one (U.S. Pat. No. 5,275,412) provides peripheral weighting, weight, and torc adjustability. None provide customization for appearance, alignment aides, repetitive soling, percussion, and loft.